Domain Infrastructure Analysis

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. Description adds valuable behavioral context (e.g., reveals hosting setup, CDN usage, geographic distribution) without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence conveys core purpose and key outputs efficiently. Information is front-loaded and well-structured, though slightly verbose with parenthetical 'Threat Intelligence Platform'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's single parameter, full schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's capabilities. It explains what data is returned and the analytical value (hosting, CDN, geography).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers the sole 'domain' parameter fully (description states what it returns). Description adds an example ('google.com') but no additional semantic value beyond the schema's explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description explicitly states 'Analyze domain infrastructure' and lists specific data types (IPv4 addresses, geolocation, subnets, resource types), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like security.threatintel.malware and security.threatintel.reputation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description implies usage for infrastructure analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., malware or reputation tools). No contextual exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.